You do not have to respect all beliefs, but do have to respect all people. No personal attacks, including ad hominem arguments. Argue the argument, not the person. Source any claims that you make. Sometimes not necessary (eg. claiming that Christians believe in Jesus), but for anything significant provide a citation before you post, make sure that whatever you're saying adds to discussion in a meaningful way. Always be mature, sensitive, and thoughtful.

Posting Regulations ("Pilate" Program):

Occasionally participants may want to narrow the answer pool to only a specific set of users. In these cases the user can tag the post [Christians] and only top level comments from Christians are allowed. All other top level replies will be removed. A person could specify [YEC] and ONLY YEC should reply as a top level comment to the post.

This is a preliminary program to allow for more finely tuned debates. If it is successful, we may choose to automate this process. If we do automate it we may have to limit flair choices.

Custom Flair

If you do not see the flair you would like to have listed in the stock flair options, you can request custom flair by messaging the mods, and it will be assigned to you. The following are the criteria for custom flair requests:

Limited to two classifications e.g. [Baptist, Ex-Catholic]

Must be relevant to religious discussion i.e. signify religious/spiritual belief or lack thereof.

By using the word implication, you prove that I explicitly said no such thing as me not being anti-gay.

Okay, let's be honest; would someone who believes they are anti-gay be this offended by an assumption that they are anti-gay?

If the OP wanted a genuine discussion on this, they would avoid using charged terms like anti-gay when discussing anti-gay-marriage proponents.

I can see your point, but I don't necessarily agree with it. Anti-gay isn't a defamatory term, it's a literal and accurate description. Yes, it does carry some baggage due to the same word being used to describe the more extreme views as well. However, if we pick a new word to use it will eventually have that same baggage. Do we call those of a smaller statue dwarfs, midgets, or little people? Retarded replaced idiot, and is accurate for developmentally disabled; that is until it became a way to insult people. Now we insult people using "mentally challenged". It's a moving target. Autism is a spectrum, but those with aspergers were uncomfortable with the association of those on the other end that the DSM redefined Autism.

My point is that no matter what term we use to describe those against gay marriage, it's also going to be associated with those who are more extreme. If I opposed interracial marriage, you would be right to call me racist. That doesn't mean I burn crosses on lawns or lynch people, but that still puts me in a place where I think darker skin means less equal. Insisting on political correctness is a pointless endeavor.

I would claim that the OP was off topic....

The OP set the topic as asking Christians opposing gay marriage to defend their position. Your topic is whether or not anti-gay is an accurate term for that position, and whether or not OP assumed all Christians were anti-gay.

I did not redefine the topic. Gay marriage includes all of those social issues. The fight isn't over the word "marriage", it's that homosexuals want access to a legal status that confers all of those rights and privileges. It is silly to create a law identical to heterosexual marriage just to avoid the use of a term, so the battle is to take the easy path of just including them into existing law.

This is false. It views homosexual acts as an abomination, not homosexuality

This is another example of your pedantry that I am arguing against. Homosexuality is descriptive of certain behaviors, and behaviors are collections of acts. I get that you can be right with God if you are gay and stay in the closet. The result of this idea is that if a person acted on their fundamental desire for love, affection, and companionship; they become are an abomination. I hope you don't believe that homosexuality is a choice. If Christians had their way, they would condemn homosexuals to live their life without that deep emotional connection.

This means that gays sin, I sin, everybody sins.

I honestly respect that position. It my be surprising, but I am a straight man happily married to a straight woman. It makes me cringe to see two guys being affectionate;. However, I also have similar reactions to straight couples I find very unattractive. That reaction comes from empathy (I'll explain). When I imagine myself in the position of that person, it's disgusting to me. It's easy to confuse "I am disgusted" with "this is inherently disgusting". The abomination word attached to it gives credibility to that confusion.

The big problem I have with the anti-gay-marriage crowd is that they are trying to legislate sin. Sin is between you and God. It is not our place to try and control or prevent sin. Christians can have holy matrimony despite gays having a legal status. My marriage is unaffected by the relationships of others. I think we can both agree that men should not be blindfolded, and women should not be covered/hidden to prevent lustful thoughts and behavior. Laws cannot (and should not) prevent lust or homosexuality. A redefinition of who gets marital rights does not affect holy matrimony in the eyes of God. The question is why you are so concerned with the sins of others, while not pushing laws to prevent sins of your own. It's easy to support laws that do not affect you. If Christians really wanted to defend Christian marriage, adultery would be illegal. Would Jesus support such hypocrisy?

I think it was at some point. Otherwise civil unions would suffice. I actually do not keep up with gay marriage news, so I do not know the current status of gay marriage.

However, if we pick a new word to use it will eventually have that same baggage.

There is a perfectly good set of words suited for this purpose: anti-gay-marriage. If you change what title you give people to appease people who are easily offended, you come up with enormously vague terms like "developmentally disabled." What development are we talking about here? Are we talking about the development of film? Are we saying that I, being developmentally disabled, am not able to develop
film? No, it would be my brain we are talking about. We should not be afraid to use a word because the truth points out some deficiency in someone. To avoid using a word like "retarded," we use "mentally challenged". Well let me tell you, sometimes I am mentally challenged. My mental state is sometimes challenged due to difficult logic problems, complex concepts etc. So I am at times mentally challenged. Do you see that you just need to call an apple an apple? Otherwise your words have less potency. We need robust words, with as little ambiguity as possible. People are afraid to use words that offend, so they use words that are extremely vague. This is not better IMO. If you avoid the truth to pander to feelings, you learn that the truth becomes harder to see. On the other hand, people intentionally use vague words for the purpose of offending others. Both are wrong. Do you agree? BTW tact has never been my strong point for this reason.

The question is why you are so concerned with the sins of others, while not pushing laws to prevent sins of your own.

I know that some laws are going to just be band-aids on sin. People will still sin. Should I allow my culture to be destroyed? Should I allow men an unobstructed path to sin? I try not to let these things happen. If they do happen, so be it. BTW I am single. I have not married.

Sin is between you and God. It is not our place to try and control or prevent sin.

If this is your belief, what is any law's purpose? Would our society function without laws? What do policemen and others who fight crime work towards? Why do they do it? I do not think the answers to these questions would bolster your ideology. God gave the ancient Israelites a series of civil laws for their whole people to follow. This was so that they would avoid defiling the land, and then the land spewing them out. It also prevented those who broke the law from dragging others down with them into sin. I am a fan of clear boundaries. God calls an apple an apple. Nothing I have read/seen/experienced has told me that the Bible is not the 100% God-inspired truth.

If Christians really wanted to defend Christian marriage, adultery would be illegal.

Adultery is somewhat illegal. Regardless, Christians are not Jesus. People need to realize this. I am not "pushing laws" really, as I am not up to date with the gay marriage debate. Laws generally reflect the ideals of the nation. But they serve an important purpose. I am sorry that some laws enable some groups more rights than others. I wish I had the answer. I think we can both agree that the US is where we both want to live, and we want a nation protected by laws. I agree that legislation is not the solution to every problem, however, you cannot deny that our laws are the reason why we have safer lives than some other countries. I have a feeling that you will say next that homosexual acts are a "victimless" behavior, to which I respond, there is no way to know unless we could see the future. So for now, I will trust in God. Any man who looks inside himself can see the base desire for sin. I do not know exactly what would happen if there were no laws forbidding incest, pedophilia, murder, stealing. But I do not need to know the exact details. All I can do is trust God. I do not know the exact details of why I was born straight, but there is no use trying to predict an alternate reality if I were not. All I can do is trust God.

I think it was at some point. Otherwise civil unions would suffice. I actually do not keep up with gay marriage news, so I do not know the current status of gay marriage.

I see it as the word "marriage" has been conflated with "holy matrimony". In my state the Christians are pushing to ban gay marriage or anything resembling it. If you could make a law that says homosexuals can have marriage, but it most be termed differently; I'd wager it would not be supported. The word marriage represents a set of rights. Civil unions are always a mere subset of those rights and privileges.

There is a perfectly good set of words suited for this purpose: anti-gay-marriage

Anti-gay is also perfectly suited. Are you telling me that there exist people who are perfectly fine with homosexual behavior, accepting of the pervasiveness of homosexuality in culture and media, but oppose gay marriage? The reason to oppose gay marriage comes from the bible. The reasoning in the bible is that it's an abomination to God, unclean, impure, immoral, etc. You can't use the same reasoning to oppose gay marriage, but otherwise be accepting of homosexuality.

If you change what title you give people to appease people who are easily offended, you come up with enormously vague terms like "developmentally disabled."

How are you not arguing against yourself? If you called me anti-gay-marriage, I could be offended that you assumed I was also against civil unions or any law resembling marriage. Do you call me anti-gay-marriage-but-pro-civil-unions? What if I am against gay marriage, and accepting of civil unions but opposing shared guardianship. Now you have to call me anti-gay-marriage-but-pro-civil-unions-except-shared-guardianship. There are many nuanced stances, and you are arguing for unnecessary specificity. Anti-gay describes the most common philosophy of those that oppose gay marriage. If most people in the anti-gay-marriage crowd did not also have a distaste for homosexuality in general, you may have a point.

What development are we talking about here? Are we talking about the development of film? Are we saying that I, being developmentally disabled, am not able to develop film? No, it would be my brain we are talking about. We should not be afraid to use a word because the truth points out some deficiency in someone. To avoid using a word like "retarded," we use "mentally challenged". Well let me tell you, sometimes I am mentally challenged.

You are being facetious. You know very well that developmentally challenged in reference to a person refers to mental development. You are not "sometimes" mentally challenged. That is an example of word misuse that causes this kind of political correctness. It is commonly known that the challenge refers to a disorder such as downs or autism, not a thing requiring problem solving.

If this is your belief, what is any law's purpose? Would our society function without laws? What do policemen and others who fight crime work towards? Why do they do it? I do not think the answers to these questions would bolster your ideology.

That's not my belief as I am not Christian. However, the definition of sin to a Christian is a transgression against God; it's not really up for debate. It's consistently stated in the bible that only God can forgive sin for this very reason.

We have laws to protect people from other people. You are hinting that Christianity is the basis for law, but that is not correct. More of the 10 commandments are legal than not. We don't want to live life in fear of being murdered or stolen from, so laws are created and enforced to prevent that. Every law that is created is done so with the intention of protecting people (except for administrative things like budgets and money allocation). Society functions better when we feel sufficiently safe and protected. Who is protected by banning gay marriage? Nobody. It does not infringe on your potential future marriage, nor the marriages of anybody else. It's about one group trying to force their values into law.

I have a feeling that you will say next that homosexual acts are a "victimless" behavior, to which I respond, there is no way to know unless we could see the future.

You posting on reddit is a victimless behavior; should we outlaw it because it may enable you to bully someone to the point of suicide? We cannot see the future, and since there is no apparent victim there is no justification to outlaw it. Unless you have the ability to see the future, what is your justification? The traditional nuclear family will still exist, unless you fear that straight men and women will enter into homosexual relationships. Children will not be forced from their mother and father to be raised by homosexuals. If anything, it enables more children to be in a loving home than an abusive home, an orphanage, a third world country, or dead. Homosexual relationships will exist even if there is no marriage. What is the purpose of this law other than persecute a group of people that commit a specific sin that the supporters happen to not?

Incest, pedophilia, murder, and stealing all have victims. If we have to spend time protecting ourselves and our assets, we are going to end up in a place like Somalia where men with guns oppress everyone else and quality of life suffers. Incest and pedophilia laws prevent the victimization of children.

Let me present some countries that have implemented religion as law. How do they fare?

I oppose polygamy on Biblical reasons as well. IMO anyone that argues that gay marriage should be legislated into law (for reasons of fairness) should also argue that polygamy should be permissible by law. It is only fair. Where did the idea of monogamy come from if not the Bible? I know some wives who would not be happy with the idea of polygamy. As a married man, how would you feel on that subject? You use the word persecution, would that apply to practitioners of polygamy as well? I am curious.

It's about one group trying to force their values into law.

Many groups are involved. You can only see your own view. I can at least consider all sides. Obviously if there is a group, and they are forcing values, who are they forcing them on? Another group is the answer. Of course there is another group. You would call them gay marriage proponents, or simply gays, and I would call them taxpayers/etymologists/patriots/Christians/lovers of specifics/lovers of culture/lovers of fairness.

However, the bible allows for concubinage. I flew that one by my wife (a Christian), and she did not approve.

As a married man, how would you feel on that subject? You use the word persecution, would that apply to practitioners of polygamy as well? I am curious.

I have no issue with polygamy, but it's not for me personally. However, you are comparing apples and oranges. Polygamy laws apply equally to all religions, races, genders, ages, and sexual orientation. Whatever the original reasoning for the law, it's not discriminatory. I imagine part of the reason for the law is that polygamy lead to abuse and poor treatment of women. The private lives of other people are none of my business until it affects me or victimizes a person.

Many groups are involved. You can only see your own view. I can at least consider all sides. Obviously if there is a group, and they are forcing values, who are they forcing them on?

Christians are forcing their religious beliefs and practices on homosexuals. This is different from other laws in that we are not protecting a victim. How can you justify dictating the values of another group, when the actions of that other group have absolutely no effect on you? What makes you the arbiter of values when the same bible has been used to support slavery, polygamy, child abuse (spare the rod), and child neglect (parents refusing care for children). In light of that, I would say that the bible is not a good source for a legal framework.